From the Commanding Heights of Society, a Yale Grad Corrects Us on Who the 'Real Victims' are

I was inadvertantly alerted to this article by a friend and did not think much of it until I found the New York Times article that it is "based" on. Immediatly I opened Word and started composing when I saw how much spin was in the Eve Fairbanks article. Actually, some of the important items are fabrications, not spin. Surprisingly, the Examiner article does not have a link for the subject article. Not even the title and author.

When she wrote about me I said that she could have done the same Stephen Glass style article from Church or her apartment without wasting my time. This time it looks like she stayed home with the hopes that nobody would look up the subject article.

In an attempt for sympathy for 'poor little' Sasha, who knowingly possessed a stolen Sidekick given to her by her amoral mother, Fairbanks invokes "The Scarlet Letter" and tries to play down Sasha's absent morals, along with those of Sasha's family, as not being so bad because it was "only a misdemeanor". She also tries to play the victim card, for the accused criminal, by invoking Sasha's brother, a military member, who was shamed by his sister's bad behavior.

Turns out that in the article that Eve wrote her story from, the brother is a Military Policeman who got in trouble for telling someone who was helping the victim to leave his sister alone. The scolding from his service was NOT because of a website trying to get a $350 phone back, it was about his own bad behavior. Eve blames it on the true victim's friend, who created a website about the stolen phone.

Side note not addressed by Fairbanks: Just because the Sidekick was left in a cab does not mean it is free to sell to/by street ventors. Like when I lost my checkbook on the DC METRO and a lady called me to ask where she should mail it back to me, just like whoever found the Sidekick should have done.

Eve Fairbanks seems to be confused about responsibility for the reprecussions of one's own behavior. It is as if Mel Gibson should not be spoken about either because of what he said freely, to a cop during his recent DUI arrest.

Absent from Fairbanks' story are the threats of bodily harm to the friend of the rightful owner of the phone. Also, when the owner's friend asked for the phone to be returned he was told to "get lost." Fairbanks leaves out the thief family threatening to sue the victim and her friend. She treats all of this as if it is perfectly fine and if anybody complains about running up a cell phone account, on a stolen phone, as just being mean.

The true victim in the NYT piece has a different "mean people" perspective.

In an interview with Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, she treated going "under cover" for hit pieces on adults trying to date adults as if she were investigating the mob or a pedophile ring.

She never informed them (including me) what she was really doing, then broke off contact hours before the article was posted on the internet. Days later the article was in print. The only people who could respond online to the article were subscribers. The one guy who took a subscription, and has the same view of ethics as Fairbanks, did respond and say he was happy.

One of the men (me) was identified by the list of descriptors by a handful of people I knew and one stranger. Being a very private person, this was quite stressful for me. I had not done anything wrong to anybody; I was just trying to find a bright, attractive, fun, adult girlfriend. I ended up having my time wasted by a reporter and becoming a subject in an article that I did not want to be included in.

At least one of the men (me) had a quote fabricated about him in the article and was described in a fabricated manner. "Hybrid My Ass! . .. has descriptions of the fabrications.

I asked not to be included in any article and the request was ignored. That was it for me.

The result? Backed up by e-mail archives I wrote my side of things in my own webspace. Not only did I have what Fairbanks and I exchanged, but I also had discussions about her between me and my friends after meeting what I thought was, a great, bright, pretty woman.

A few people picked my story up around the Internet and she even got into a gossip column of sorts in the Washington Post. Sound familiar? Howard Kurtz didn't knock on my door, perhaps he did Eve's or she was just adding "flavour" again. He only e-mailed me, then called me.

Now, she writes as if being called on this bahavior is becoming a victim. I call it Fairbanksing. The lesson to learn is, behave ethically and nobody can have a valid complaint against you.

What little information I have on Eve Fairbanks that is not already online from other sources is staying offline, forever.

Hmmm wonder if Eve's desire to write about internet "shaming" has anything to do with your attempts to set the record straight?

I would be very surprised if it is not. What other reason would anyone have to take the side of the criminals in this case, and leave out the fact that they repeatedly lied to and threatened the actual victims?

Its also amazing what a crappy writer she is. Her Examiner story sounds like the sort of thing I'd expect from a high-school newspaper 'reporter' not a New Republic staffer.

My understanding is that newspaper reporters have little interest in "truth" it is all about writing stories that wet the appetites of their readers so they continue to read advertisements. That means writing "truths" that were unexpected, but not too far (if at all) outside their general worldview